I bought a Gosh Darn Cure Wand!

[Finlanderboy]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

pathar wrote:

TimrehIX wrote:

SCPRedMage wrote:

Now, as to anyone "demanding" healing, well gee, it appears to me that this entire thread got started because someone didn't want to buy a healing wand, but still wanted to receive healing.

I bring potions to every game I sit at.

Then why did you need the wand?

Because other people demanded he get one.

This is my HUGE issue. No one should demand to anyone what their character should do. If someone demanded I buy anything. I would immediately say no and be stubborn just becuase they made a demand of me. I said what that was in a previous thread and it was deleted, but that type of attitude it a jerk in the extreme.

[Tim Statler]

Cause maybe it is in CHARACTER?!

I usually buys wands for most of my characters, but not my 1/2 orc barbarian.
He's not to bright and wouldn't know what to do with the little stick he was given. But he can understand that if he gets hurt, drinking this fluid that tastes like Castor Oil can make part of the hurt go away.
Then he asks Mr. Holy man nicely to make last part better,and he'll carry Mr. Holy man's stuff.
(Yes, I play he needs a handler.)

[Finlanderboy]

Tim Statler wrote:

Cause maybe it is in CHARACTER?!

That is silly. Using an excuse in character to bully someone is like telling a racist joke and saying it was just a joke. It is still offensive towards the people it was directed at. If you wanna makes demands in character make sure the other player(s) know that before the jerk actions start coming.

Using your character to abuse a player is a passive aggresive jerk action if you ask me.

[Tim Statler]

Over react much Finlanderboy? NOt having a wand IS NOT bullying.

Cooperation is a 2 way street. If you would read before knee-jerk reacting. I did give reasons someone would have potions instead of wands.

[Finlanderboy]

Tim Statler wrote:

Over react much Finlanderboy? NOt having a wand IS NOT bullying.

Cooperation is a 2 way street. If you would read before knee-jerk reacting. I did give reasons someone would have potions instead of wands.

I am sorry you think disagreement is overreacting. That is not very helpful for the debate.

People get to play their own characters. I think that is final and everyone agrees witht that. That player chooses what his character gets to do and purchase. Making DEMANDS(this is the key word)of any other character is a jerk move as my definition.

If a player makes demands of another player in hcaracter and that player is made uncomfortable. Still a jerk move.

If you feel it is fine to in-game troll another character that is a sad opinion, and you will be in the minority.

If we are argeuing a different I apologize.

[TOZ]

Why are you guys arguing? You both believe players can chose to not buy wands. *confuzzled*

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

nosig wrote:

So, which guy you going to accept in your team?

Bob La Feet - Barbarian "Glass Cannon" who prides himself in putting down the monsters in 3 rounds.... and relies on the rest of the team to heal him up?

Jo La Feet - Barbarian "Glass Cannon" who prides herself in putting down the monsters in 3 rounds.... and has a wand of CLW?

Everything else the same...

Except everything is not the same. Why? Because the player who's focused on healing damage is less capable than the player who's focused on stopping it to begin with. I don't want a fighter who can heal himself, I want a fighter who makes it so he doesn't need to be healed in the first place. The player who's savvy enough to take a proactive stance is going to be smarter, safer player, than the guy who just buys a CLW because that's what people told him to do.

Is getting a CLW a prudent thing to do? Yes. Is it the best decision every character can make? Not in my opinion. And I would never, ever, begrudge healing to a front liner who was willing to play tactically and clearly had the party's best interest at heart.

a player who has had his PC pick up a wand of CLW is not "focused on healing damage"... and the statement still stands.

The differences between the two PCs are

PC A has a wand of CLW.

PC B has 2 more PP. (and IMHO, the expectation that his party will heal him).

Which one do invite to sit down?

[TriOmegaZero]

Whichever one you prefer.

[Finlanderboy]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Whichever one you prefer.

Both if there is room.

[nosig]

Finlanderboy wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Whichever one you prefer.

Both if there is room.

sign... there is not. read the posts above please.

[nosig]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Tim Statler wrote:

Over react much Finlanderboy? NOt having a wand IS NOT bullying.

Cooperation is a 2 way street. If you would read before knee-jerk reacting. I did give reasons someone would have potions instead of wands.

I am sorry you think disagreement is overreacting. That is not very helpful for the debate.

People get to play their own characters. I think that is final and everyone agrees witht that. That player chooses what his character gets to do and purchase. Making DEMANDS(this is the key word)of any other character is a jerk move as my definition.

If a player makes demands of another player in hcaracter and that player is made uncomfortable. Still a jerk move.

If you feel it is fine to in-game troll another character that is a sad opinion, and you will be in the minority.

If we are argeuing a different I apologize.

My PC is injured.

It's after the combat.
Your PC has a wand of CLW, I know, 'cause he had it the last two scenarios we played together, and he used it on my PC 15 times in each of those games. So... I'm waiting... my PC is down 20 HP...

[Finlanderboy]

Does my character like your character?

[redward]

Whose responsibility is it to have an Oil of Daylight in case you encounter Darkness?

Whose responsibility is it to have something to fight incorporeal creatures? Invisible creatures?

Who's supposed to take on flyers?

The answer: every single one of us. Pick a class. Pick a role. Doesn't matter. Every pathfinder should be prepared for anything to the best of their abilities.

When everyone shows up without a wand because "I'm not the healer," you have no wands.

The "not my job" mentality is what causes TPKs. "My character wouldn't have a wand" is roughly equivalent to "my character wouldn't carry a weapon" which is roughly equivalent to "my character has a good chance of becoming a burden to my party."

No one is saying you have to buy a wand. Everyone is saying that it is in the best interest of your party for you to have one. Why are you dead set against doing something in the best interests of your party? You are in your party.

And should you choose not to carry one, well, thats your choice. But now you have no right to expect healing from someone else. And you can say "that's fine, I never expect healing." But if you're sitting there with 3 hp, the party now has to decide whether to pony up at their own expense or leave you behind because you, the tank, are now worthless to the party in your current state.

I don't care if you think your tanking is a free pass for unlimited charges from my wand. You know what is absolutely equivalent to a 15gp charge from my CLW wand? A 15gp charge from your CLW wand.

[Akerlof]

I don't understand that people don't seem to understand that spending resources to maintain your HP is just the same as spending resources to maintain you AC and Attack Bonus and handle Deeper Darkness and flying enemies and everything else.

There are no shared resources in PFS, everybody has to provide their own. So, if you choose a character that makes expensive decisions, such as Two Weapon Fighting or wearing heavy mithral armor or using lots of wands and scrolls or taking a lot of hits, you need to pay for those resources. A ranger wouldn't expect the PFS party to provide a second enchanted kukri for him even though he's spending twice as much money as the greatsword wielder. So why should the "tank" expect everyone to pony up and pay for his healing.

If this were a home game where loot was divided, it would make sense to pool the entire group's resources for healing. But that just isn't the case for PFS.

I don't expect the party to pay for my armor when I tank, why should I expect them to pay for my out of combat healing?

So, if you're on your second wand with your level 3 tanking monk, that's 1500 GP worth of investment you've put into tanking. My cleric spent 2650 on armor, another 1180 on a shield and was on his third CLW wand by level 4. That's 6080gp of investment in his tanking (though less than half of those wand charges were used on himself, so you might want to pro-rate them.) The armor was far more expensive, but why should I treat the wands any differently than the armor?

I invested in the armor to protect the group in the same way a barbarian invests in a Falchion to kill monsters, that's just part of playing the character. Another part of playing the character is taking damage, and the only difference between dealing with damage and dealing with other probabilities like Deeper Darkness or flying or invisible enemies is that damage happens a LOT more often. Are you arguing that a character shouldn't prepare to deal with those other possibilities, because "casting fly is the wizard's job," or "casting Daylight is the Sorcerer's job," or "casting Faery Fire is the Druid's job?" Why is healing HP damage the ONLY eventuality that isn't your own character's responsibility?

[N N 959]

nosig wrote:

The differences between the two PCs are

PC A has a wand of CLW.

PC B has 2 more PP. (and IMHO, the expectation that his party will heal him).

Which one do invite to sit down?

That's like saying who do you invite, the guy who spent 310gp on a MW sword or the guy who still has his 310gp?

Your comparison is invalid because it fails to address SCPRedMages insistence on calling anyone who could have purchased a CLW wand and didn't, a "freeloader."

SCP has blanket labeled every single player who doesn't bring a wand and "wants to be healed" as a freeloader. Because burning other consumables means nothing if you want to be healed. Because you shouldn't "want" to be healed if you don't have a CLW on you.

So no, I'm taking the guy who uses his 2 PP toe leverage his abilities and in an effort to obviate the need for healing from the beginning. As I told that Cleric from Clasitra who became uncivil OOC, the point is to kill the bad guys, not take damage from them.

[N N 959]

Akerlof wrote:

... spending resources to maintain your HP is just the same as spending resources to maintain you AC and Attack Bonus and handle Deeper Darkness and flying enemies and everything else.

The problem is this statement is once again, demonstrably false. It is not some cosmic constant that 2 PP spent on a CLW is the best investment of 2 PP for every class. It may be your opinion or comport with your play style, but it is not a universal truth.

[SCPRedMage]

N N 959 wrote:

Because the player who's focused on healing damage is less capable than the player who's focused on stopping it to begin with.

Except we're not saying he should focus on healing. We're saying he should be able to provide the out-of-combat resources himself. I frankly don't care if he can swing the wand himself or not.

How, precisely, is a character that uses two freaking prestige to pick up a wand "less capable" in any meaningful way? Worst it will do is delay him buying some low-level gear using prestige by ONE session, which is completely irrelevant WELL before level three. Since this is a prestige purpose, it literally has no effect on their ability to buy/upgrade magic gear, other than consumables.

And exactly WHAT consumables are more important to be spending prestige on at that level? I've got FIVE characters level three and above, and I haven't seen the need for potions/oils of level three spells, such as the Daylight oils you cited earlier. There's a reason people usually say you need to be able to deal with magical darkness by level FIVE.

What PERMANENT items worth 750gp or less can you purchase to help you tank/deal damage? You've got armor, you've got weapons, and... yeah, that's about it. Assuming either sword and board or dual wielding, that's six prestige. That, plus the two for the wand, can be earned in as few as FOUR missions.

So tell me, how EXACTLY, is the purchase of ONE FREAKING WAND so vastly detrimental to ANYONE'S ability to buy gear that the entire rest of the party should be expected to buy crap for them, instead of spending THEIR resources "in an effort to obviate the need for healing from the beginning"?

I, once again, have to state my complete lack of understanding that contributing, at all, somehow means the someones, who is ALSO contributing (possibly just as much, possibly MORE) is indebted to the first character, such that they need to start healing them out of their own pocket. What makes one character's contribution worthy of free healing, while the other has to pay?

Yes, this is a team game, and working together is darn near essential. But it's still bloody rude to show up to a table of player you potentially don't know and expect them to be willing to pay for something you won't.

And just because they DID contribute in combat does NOT mean they are NOT trying to freeload their healing. I pay for my healing, the other guys pay for my healing, but YOU won't? What makes YOU entitled to MY resources?

HINT: TOZ already gave the answer earlier today.

[Serum]

N N 959 wrote:

So no, I'm taking the guy who uses his 2 PP toe leverage his abilities and in an effort to obviate the need for healing from the beginning. As I told that Cleric from Clasitra who became uncivil OOC, the point is to kill the bad guys, not take damage from them.

Cool. I guess everyone should spend their 2 PP in an effort obviate the need for healing from the beginning. Then no one will be providing or needing healing consumables, because no one is ever taking damage!

What a huge insight into this game.

[Tim Statler]

BTW Finlanderboy, I was originally responded to Pathar, not you.

And if you noticed I did have my character buy healing, a healing he understood.
"Sticks are for using in fires not making people better. Yucky tasting liquids make people better."

So he does contribute to his own healing. He is not "Freeloading" because he doesn't own a wand. His job is to open doors with his Adamantine Earthbreaker.

And since I play him dumb, over half his non-GM chronicles only have 1PP on them. He does not completely understand the concept of faction missions. Usually it has to be completed by someone else in his faction.

Akerlof said

Quote:

So, if you're on your second wand with your level 3 tanking monk, that's 1500 GP worth of investment you've put into tanking.

Actually that is 1500gp over and above MY ARMOR and WEAPONS. If you get to count yours I get to count mine.

I'm not saying you should not buy a wand if it is even remotely in character, that is just polite. But Saying Every character MUST have a wand is bullying.

[redward]

I don't think anyone's saying you must have a wand. I'm certainly not.

I am saying that if you choose not to have one, you have to live (and die) with the consequences.

And those consequences could mean no healing. Because your party demanding you buy a wand is just as bad as you demanding they have one for you, right?

[Akerlof]

Tim Statler wrote:

Akerlof said

Quote:

So, if you're on your second wand with your level 3 tanking monk, that's 1500 GP worth of investment you've put into tanking.

Actually that is 1500gp over and above MY ARMOR and WEAPONS. If you get to count yours I get to count mine.

Yes, you should "count" all of your characters expenditures as the cost it takes to do the job you want him to do in the way you want him to do it. That's my point: Don't segregate out the cost of healing and say it's an extra costs for tanks or something: It's just as intrinsic to your character's expenses as his armor or weapon or other consumables.

[trollbill]

redward wrote:

trollbill wrote:

This reminds me of an old 1E game I played. Back then you only got magic items you found (so everyone having their own wand was out of the question) and clerics were pretty much the only source of healing. The party cleric decided that if NPCs could charge for healing, he could to. So he started charging PCs 50 gp for CLWs. Next battle an axe wielding Orc charged the party. The fighter stepped aside and let the Orc charge past him to the cleric. The cleric screamed "what did you do that for?" the fighter said, "Oh, you want me to stand in front of the monster? That will be 50 gold, please."

I don't know why there's this persistent idea that the role of a tank is inherently more valuable than any other.

I am not sure how you got 'tanks are more valuable than healers' as the 'take away' from that anecdote. The 'take away' should have been 'tanks are not less valuable than healers.'

[Finlanderboy]

Tim Statler wrote:

I'm not saying you should not buy a wand if it is even remotely in character, that is just polite. But Saying Every character MUST have a wand is bullying.

Yes, a thousand times yes

[trollbill]

nosig wrote:

trollbill wrote:

This reminds me of an old 1E game I played. Back then you only got magic items you found (so everyone having their own wand was out of the question) and clerics were pretty much the only source of healing. The party cleric decided that if NPCs could charge for healing, he could to. So he started charging PCs 50 gp for CLWs. Next battle an axe wielding Orc charged the party. The fighter stepped aside and let the Orc charge past him to the cleric. The cleric screamed "what did you do that for?" the fighter said, "Oh, you want me to stand in front of the monster? That will be 50 gold, please."

and the players were looking over the loot... everyone gets a pick from the magic items and they roll dice to see who picks first.

1st pick Cleric:"I'll take the magic sword"
2nd pick Fighter"huh? You can't use that!"
Cleric: "I'll be selling this to get me some better armor. That orc hit hard!"

;)

Yes, because the correct response to someone being a jerk to you because you were being a jerk to them in the first place isn't actually to stop being a jerk, its to be an even bigger jerk in response.

[wakedown]

Lamontius wrote:

what if my character has a CLW wand and vin diesel forgot to buy one for his character, or what if Vin Diesel is using a wand of infernal healing and he does not own the proper source material

vin diesel you are not taking my table seat

Lamontius, you're totally my bro.

But Riddick's come to play...

We'll get you in a game next week.

~

As far as this thread is concerned, I care more about the other player's attitude and willingness to do interesting, creative things at that table than if he has a wand.

(Meaning I agree with many folks who have said this, but differently)

I will gladly drop 2PP every session to bring wands for everyone to be surrounded by great people, even if it means my characters lack the PP to be raised.

[Hakken]

I would not tell someone they have to have a wand, BUT I don't expect them to tell me as a cleric I have to heal them.

Maybe I am a negative channeling combat cleric. Maybe I want to use my spells to summon monsters to fight. As a cleric you have no more right to expect me to fill a role (as a healer) than I do to tell you what equipment to get (put away the greatsword and fight with a longsword and shield cause you have better ac and get hit less)]]

as for expectations---everyone should come prepared to deal with whatever as in you may not have a class optimized for that position at the table.

no fighter, monk martial types--someone still has to tank

no healers--someone still has to heal
]
no arcane--someone still has to be able to fly and deal with swarms

I probably will heal you as a cleric--but if you come with the attitude--you are a cleric--shut up and be a heal bot and use your wand on me? Expect me to switch to dps cleric using my spells to summon and using channels to harm undead.

[wjsilver]

I figure, if there's someone at the table who is committing expensive consumables to a mission, like giving me a potion of Fly or sharing a potion of invisibility to the rogue, they can have all the charges off my wand as they want.

And if we are going to the top of a mountain and expecting ability damage, and I get some scrolls of lesser restoration for the cleric to cast on me, I think it's fair if I want the cleric not to use them on other people. (And it's also fair for him to do something else with his actions if he wants when fighting breaks out.)

And I think I would like a particular cleric better if after a battle, if several of us have some light damage, and it's reasonable to spare a channel instead of using several wand charges, that cleric went ahead and burnt the channel for us.

And if a player hasn't spent money on a wand, but has some epic build where he clears every encounter himself with ease, I might be a little cheesed off if he wants to burn some charges off my fighter's wand. But if I'm playing a cleric, or my bard (who often takes on healbot duty with a CLW wand; and players love him) I'd likely be happy to help out.

Like I said before I think we all just agree we don't like jerks. Whether the jerk is a cleric or a fighter. One might say a team is like a body. And if one part suffers, the whole team suffers. And the less glorious parts, such as the healbots and the buffers deserve the extra respect from the table.

When we're preparing for everything we are really preparing for one thing. A bad team. Whether it's because of bad party make up (hopefully), or a team that is unprepared or unwilling to do what it takes to meet the task at hand. It's an unfortunate reality, but it is what it is.

And obviously the DPRs, tanks, and other classes are important too. I mean who's going to save the world with four white mages... er, clerics? ;)

Anyway this thread seems pretty heated. Hope it can cool down without hurt feelings or anything.

[SCPRedMage]

wjsilver wrote:

I figure, if there's someone at the table who is committing expensive consumables to a mission, like giving me a potion of Fly or sharing a potion of invisibility to the rogue, they can have all the charges off my wand as they want.

Sharing resources is a TOTALLY different story. You give my a 150-750gp potion, I'll give you PLENTY of 15gp charges.

What I have a problem with is someone sitting down at the table, and expecting me to fork over resources just because they're there and I have them.

[TriOmegaZero]

SCPRedMage wrote:

What I have a problem with is someone sitting down at the table, and expecting me to fork over resources just because they're there and I have them.

Funny, that's how I feel about people telling me to get a CLW wand. :)

[N N 959]

SCPRedMage wrote:

How, precisely, is a character that uses two freaking prestige to pick up a wand "less capable" in any meaningful way?

So your argument is essentially that there is no opportunity cost for using 2 PP to get a CLW.

Any character that uses Rage should strongly consider saving the majority of their first 16 PP for a resurrection. Any time a Rager goes negative, he runs the risk of dying immediately. No CLW is going to stop that. A resurrection in the bank allows that character to truly give it his/her all when the chips are down.

Nor do I begrudge anyone from saving all their early PP for a resurrection. Such being the case, there is always a trade-off of using up PP to purchase anything. On a general note, anyone who knows they can be resurrected is more likely to fight harder than those who can't.

So for the first 3 levels, I don't consider a player has every single PP available to spend. They might only be willing to spend 2-6 at most. What could they get besides a CLW wand?

1. Well, a host of 2nd level Cleric spells as potions: Bull's Strength(any melee), Bear's Endurance (Barbarian), Owls' Wisdom (monk). 20 minutes of Resist Energy might be worth several CLW wands depending on the mission; Delay Poison

2. Let's look at 3rd level Cleric: CSW (because 1d8+1 sometimes isn't going to cut it), Remove Blindness, Remove Curse, Remove Disease, Water Breathing, Water Walk,

3. Let's look at 4th level Cleric scrolls you could carry and give to a cleric: Divine Power, Freedom of Movement, Neutralize Poison, Magic Weapon Greater, Spell Immunity.

And that's primarily from the Cleric list. Other than Barkskin, I haven't really looked at the Druid or Wizard.

Quote:

And exactly WHAT consumables are more important to be spending prestige on at that level? I've got FIVE characters level three and above, and I haven't seen the need for potions/oils of level three spells, such as the Daylight oils you cited earlier.

I can't speak to what you see as "need." Nor am I going to debate whether you think any of these things are more important than a wand of CLW. What is a fact is that all these things make you more prepared for certain situations and they can all be purchased with 2 PP.

Quote:

What PERMANENT items worth 750gp or less can you purchase to help you tank/deal damage?

MW Composite Longbow at +2 STR. Fighters being able to pump out damage at range is a nice thing. A pair of MW Cold Iron Scimitars. And while not "PERMANENT" certainly worht having: three ghost salt blanches, six Adamantine Blanches.

Quote:

So tell me, how EXACTLY, is the purchase of ONE FREAKING WAND so vastly detrimental to ANYONE'S ability to buy gear that the entire rest of the party should be expected to buy crap for them, instead of spending THEIR resources "in an effort to obviate the need for healing from the beginning"?

1. You're overstating the case and exaggerating my position. I said purchasing a CLW comes at an opportunity cost. I've proven that.

2. I'm a proponent of leveraging what you're good at. A fighter can't use a wand. But more to the point, a wand of CLW doesn't help a fighter do damage. A MW comp Longbow at +2 STR in the hands of a Dex fighter might just help the fighter kill the bad guys before they even get in range to do damage.

3. No where did I say you had to have a wand of CLW. Nor did I say you had to use it on said fighter. But my ranger can use a wand of CLW so having one and using it to heal the fighters is leveraging my ranger's class abilities. Anyone who can use a wand of CLW/IH leverages their character's strengths by doing so. I have a wand of CLW and us it on the fighter so I don't have to be exposed to combat. I'd rather he/she focus his/her resources on making the fight as short as possible.

Quote:

I, once again, have to state my complete lack of understanding that contributing, at all, somehow means the someones, who is ALSO contributing (possibly just as much, possibly MORE) is indebted to the first character, such that they need to start healing them out of their own pocket.

You said the person without the CLW was freeloading if they simply "wanted" to be healed. I categorically reject that assertion. Nowhere did I say you were indebted to anyone. Me, I'm happy to heal said fighter because he/she is making sure I can crush foes without suffering AoO's.

You don't want to heal the fighter after he takes a crippling amount of damage protecting the party because he doesn't have his own WCLW... don't.

[TriOmegaZero]

I will say that my bard having an oil of daylight saved the party barbarian from death by Con drain last week.

[Soul]

My current PFS character is a support character through and through.

Oracle (life) dual-cursed Archtype (clouded vision, Deaf)

strength 8
dexterity 8
constitution 14 (15 from level 4)
Intelligence 12
Wisdom 10
Charisma 20

mysteries: Channel Positive Energy, Life Link, Energy Body.
feats: Selective Channel, Toughness, Extra Revelation.

i give my entire party fast healing 5 (as long as they take 5 hp of damage, and up to 4 party members currently) and heal myself/others with my channels, wands, spells, or energy body in dire situations.

my point with all this is that some players build support characters, for the sake of support characters. i dont care two whit's if johnny-tank-and-spank doesnt have a wand he can use, mine didnt cost anything. i dont even have a magic weapon or armor, why would i need it when i can heal 2d8+1d6+9 in a single round to myself or a single ally, or if i can heal 2d6 to every ally in the area, plus my 5 from lifelink. i dont do anything else but heal, and id love if you let me use your resources, but i wont be pissy if its the other way around, thats why i built my character.

[Soul]

and furthermore i have not met a single player, at multiple different tables, that has said "man, that oracle was useless" EVERYONE i have played with has loads of fun playing with my poor, quirky little oracle. i talk (with a 12 diplo) through writing messages on sheets of paper from a wizards spellbook. ive yet to raise a laugh when the gm asks for initiative mods and i tell them mine (-5). and ive not once had a player not laugh when i offer to stand watch over the camp/caravan/party at night.

[Cold Napalm]

trollbill wrote:

So you look at a single stagnant stat of my character and decide it is a bad build solely on that without knowing anything else I might bring to the table. Then you decide that since I did not, in your imagination, meet some arbitrary measure of brokenness, it is entirely my fault I am taking damage and am thus solely responsible for healing it.

And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap.

And, No, it is not an issue of builds. If I had an AC of 300 and 2 Million HP it would still be an issue of fairness.

Do I NEED anymore info then your AC for is your gonna get hit often or not?!? I don't care what else you CAN do. What you CAN'T do is AC tanking. And yes if you had 300 AC legally and 2 million HP legally at level 4 and did not bring a CLW wands, then it would not really be an issue since if you ACTUALLY needed a CLW wand, it was due to some MASSIVELY unlucky rolls...and seriously, at that point, everyone should be a little bit scared since a galaxy somewhere just got sucked into a black hole to make that statistically happen.

[Cold Napalm]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

trollbill wrote:

TOZ wrote:

trollbill wrote:

And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap.

Oh, don't mind him. Cold Napalm is always that way.

...sigh... were he the only one on these forums...

Napalms ideas of optimization are a little higher than most, so when you have a pretty basic character it looks reaaally bad to him, kind of like someone driving 65 on the autobahn.

Not BAD per say. But claiming that your a "tank" with 24 AC at level 4 is...well not really a well made tank. Now can he do good damage with that AC 24? Probably. But he isn't a tank at that point, he's a DPR who gets hit a bit less then other DPR.

[Benrislove]

Cold Napalm wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

trollbill wrote:

TOZ wrote:

trollbill wrote:

And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap.

Oh, don't mind him. Cold Napalm is always that way.

...sigh... were he the only one on these forums...

Napalms ideas of optimization are a little higher than most, so when you have a pretty basic character it looks reaaally bad to him, kind of like someone driving 65 on the autobahn.

Not BAD per say. But claiming that your a "tank" with 24 AC at level 4 is...well not really a well made tank. Now can he do good damage with that AC 24? Probably. But he isn't a tank at that point, he's a DPR who gets hit a bit less then other DPR.

24 at 4 isn't super far behind, and is certainly enough for most circumstances. Honestly i'd say it's a pretty average AC for the "late bloomer" type tanks. Like druids.

Clearly a fighter, Towershield specialist specifically, is going to be chilling in the high 20's.

Also 4.0 is probably 2 AC worse than 4.2 :-p.

On topic
Wands are so POWERFUL for giving up basically nothing, that you should have one. If a PC doesn't have one I mention that they can pick up wands with 2 PP, and most people grab either cure or infernal healing, just to be a little more self reliant.

I don't see a need to push the issue beyond that :)

[Caderyn]

Depends on if you are counting with or without buffs for AC

My level 4 barbarian (who is built purely to be amusing with greatsword and shield) chills at 27 AC unbuffed (10 armor +1 dex + 1 trait + 1 dodge + 4 shield) with SoF/Barkskin he hits 31, and it will only get higher as he levels.

AC is fairly easy to obtain early (full plate + a shield puts you at 21 minimum) and actually alot cheaper than most people think in the long run to keep it at a reasonable level (as PFS has such a low level cap you can actually keep a respectable AC for low investment).

A two handed fighter (DPR built) has a AC of 24 unbuffed (10 armor +2 dex +1 trait +1 dodge), (total cost is just 2.6k for the armor everything else is free AC).

Wands are definately worth spending the money or PA on

[trollbill]

Cold Napalm wrote:

trollbill wrote:

So you look at a single stagnant stat of my character and decide it is a bad build solely on that without knowing anything else I might bring to the table. Then you decide that since I did not, in your imagination, meet some arbitrary measure of brokenness, it is entirely my fault I am taking damage and am thus solely responsible for healing it.

And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap.

And, No, it is not an issue of builds. If I had an AC of 300 and 2 Million HP it would still be an issue of fairness.

Do I NEED anymore info then your AC for is your gonna get hit often or not?!?

Yes, quite frankly, I can think of several ways that this is an erroneous conclusion. However, I have no intentions of indulging you in your game by explaining them to you. If you are the power gamer you think you are you should be able to figure those out on your own. I posted on this thread to make a point about fairness, not so some elitist power gamer can get his jollies by publically denegrating my build.

I should not have to (nor should anyone) justify my build to you before I get a reasonable response. And I am not going to. If you can't take me at my word then your opinion has no value to me.

[Dhjika]

N N 959 wrote:

....
Is getting a CLW a prudent thing to do? Yes. Is it the best decision every character can make? Not in my opinion. And I would never, ever, begrudge healing to a front liner who was willing to play tactically and clearly had the party's best interest at heart.

I would agree if he was OK with the healing I had to offer, but I have had quite a few people refuse my healing and berate me for having an infernal healing wand and not a cure light wounds wand.

If you can't (or won't) take infernal healing then I suggest getting a CLW Wand for yourself.

[nosig]

Figured this thread could use this link...

Painlords What to Expect at a PFS Table.

[Akerlof]

trollbill wrote:

I should not have to (nor should anyone) justify my build to you before I get a reasonable response. And I am not going to. If you can't take me at my word then your opinion has no value to me.

The absolute response is that your expenses are your responsibility. If your build and playstyle lead to you requiring a lot of healing, it's your reaponsibility to provide that healing. If spending the money or prestige on wands is so expensive that it means you have to pass up getting other gear for your character, remember that someone else still has to pay that expense so they will have to give up getting something useful for their character because someone had to spend those resources on your character.

For every "tank" out there thinking they deserve heals because they keep the bad guys off the "squishies," there's a divine caster wishing he had the cash for a Breath of Life scroll.

Again, there are no common resources in Pathfinder Society. We can't pull a healing budget out of the group's loot. Therefore, it is your own responsibility to provide the resources to keep your HP up, exactly the same way it's your own responsibility to pay for your own armor, weapons and other consumables. (Sure, the stuff we find over the course of a scenario goes to whomever can use it, but that's seldom enough to handle all the healing needs.)

Why do you think wands are any different than armor or weapons? Why shouldn't your character provide their own healing the way they provide their own armor and weapons?

[redward]

Is it only fighters/barbarians/tanky DPR types who feel like they shouldn't be responsible for their own healing? I think those are the only classes/roles I've seen mentioned from the anti-wand camp.

[SCPRedMage]

redward wrote:

Is it only fighters/barbarians/tanky DPR types who feel like they shouldn't be responsible for their own healing? I think those are the only classes/roles I've seen mentioned from the anti-wand camp.

The OP appears to have been a wizard.

[trollbill]

Akerlof wrote:

The absolute response is that your expenses are your responsibility. If your build and playstyle lead to you requiring a lot of healing, it's your reaponsibility to provide that healing. If spending the money or prestige on wands is so expensive that it means you have to pass up getting other gear for your character, remember that someone else still has to pay that expense so they will have to give up getting something useful for their character because someone had to spend those resources on your character.

For every "tank" out there thinking they deserve heals because they keep the bad guys off the "squishies," there's a divine caster wishing he had the cash for a Breath of Life scroll.

Again, there are no common resources in Pathfinder Society. We can't pull a healing budget out of the group's loot. Therefore, it is your own responsibility to provide the resources to keep your HP up, exactly the same way it's your own responsibility to pay for your own armor, weapons and other consumables. (Sure, the stuff we find over the course of a scenario goes to whomever can use it, but that's seldom enough to handle all the healing needs.)

Why do you think wands are any different than armor or weapons? Why shouldn't your character provide their own healing the way they provide their own armor and weapons?

At no point was I arguing someone else should be footing the bill for my healing expenses or that I have no responsibility for my own healing. In fact, I wasn't even really complaining or looking for a solution. I was making a point about fairness.

And while there is no party gold pool in PFS that does not mean everyone can't share resources. Pathfinder is a team game, so the correct answer to who is responsible for the tank's healing is 'the entire party.'

Now, having said that, the reality is that random table makeup and the failure of some players to understand the cooperative nature of the game means it is prudent for everyone to have their own healing source, but that's not the same thing as responsibility.

[redward]

SCPRedMage wrote:

redward wrote:

Is it only fighters/barbarians/tanky DPR types who feel like they shouldn't be responsible for their own healing? I think those are the only classes/roles I've seen mentioned from the anti-wand camp.

The OP appears to have been a wizard.

So he does. There goes that theory.

[redward]

trollbill wrote:

And while there is no party gold pool in PFS that does not mean everyone can't share resources. Pathfinder is a team game, so the correct answer to who is responsible for the tank's healing is 'the entire party.'

I agree 100%.

As long as we both agree that the tank is part of the entire party.

[trollbill]

redward wrote:

Is it only fighters/barbarians/tanky DPR types who feel like they shouldn't be responsible for their own healing? I think those are the only classes/roles I've seen mentioned from the anti-wand camp.

Why would you expect someone who doesn't take any damage because the tank takes it for him care much about his own healing?

[trollbill]

redward wrote:

trollbill wrote:

And while there is no party gold pool in PFS that does not mean everyone can't share resources. Pathfinder is a team game, so the correct answer to who is responsible for the tank's healing is 'the entire party.'

I agree 100%.

As long as we both agree that the tank is part of the entire party.

Yes, I agree. My point was never that the tank was not part of the equation, simply that he was not the ONLY part of the equation.

[SCPRedMage]

trollbill wrote:

Why would you expect someone who doesn't take any damage because the tank takes it for him care much about his own healing?

Because the OP was a wizard who seemed to care more than a little about his own healing?

[The black raven]

trollbill wrote:

Akerlof wrote:

The absolute response is that your expenses are your responsibility. If your build and playstyle lead to you requiring a lot of healing, it's your reaponsibility to provide that healing. If spending the money or prestige on wands is so expensive that it means you have to pass up getting other gear for your character, remember that someone else still has to pay that expense so they will have to give up getting something useful for their character because someone had to spend those resources on your character.

For every "tank" out there thinking they deserve heals because they keep the bad guys off the "squishies," there's a divine caster wishing he had the cash for a Breath of Life scroll.

Again, there are no common resources in Pathfinder Society. We can't pull a healing budget out of the group's loot. Therefore, it is your own responsibility to provide the resources to keep your HP up, exactly the same way it's your own responsibility to pay for your own armor, weapons and other consumables. (Sure, the stuff we find over the course of a scenario goes to whomever can use it, but that's seldom enough to handle all the healing needs.)

Why do you think wands are any different than armor or weapons? Why shouldn't your character provide their own healing the way they provide their own armor and weapons?

At no point was I arguing someone else should be footing the bill for my healing expenses or that I have no responsibility for my own healing. In fact, I wasn't even really complaining or looking for a solution. I was making a point about fairness.

And while there is no party gold pool in PFS that does not mean everyone can't share resources. Pathfinder is a team game, so the correct answer to who is responsible for the tank's healing is 'the entire party.'

Now, having said that, the reality is that random table makeup and the failure of some players to understand the cooperative nature of the game means it is prudent for everyone...

Both of these posts raise an extremely insightful topic which is whether all roles (tank, divine caster, arcane caster ...) are equal in terms of how much money/PA they need to function adequately.

My intuition is that they are not, or more precisely that this aspect is not taken into account in matters of game balance.